BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Part I: Euthanasia1 Qualification for Euthanasia
(1) In order to be eligible for euthanasia, the following must apply, other than the exceptions set out in sub-section (2):
(a) The patient be suffering from a degenerative injury or illness as confirmed by two doctors.
(b) The patient agrees to the action unwaveringly, on more than one occasion, over the period of 28 days, without any prescribed medication being known to influence or cause side effects recogniseable as forms of depression or mania.
(c) Two clinical psychologists agree that the patient is in a fit state of mind.
(2) The conditions set out in sub-section (1) are waived if all of the following apply:
(a) There is prior written consent, signed without duress, that a person would wish to be euthanised should they reach a certain condition.
(b) They have reached that condition.
(c) They are incapable of communicating, or are mentally unfit to make a decision on euthanasia at this point.
(3) All consenting occasions as set out in (1), or written consent as set out in (2) must occur within the presence of the patients next of kin where available, or a legal representative for the patient where not.

2 Method of Euthanasia
(1) The preferred method of euthanasia is an oral dose of appropriate drugs.
(2) If the patient is not capable of taking the drugs orally, a doctor may induce coma and following this administer muscle relaxing drugs.
(3) All euthanasia must be carried out in the presence of a doctor and a legal representative of the patient.

3 Criminal Liability
(1) Where the conditions set out in sections 1 and 2 are met, all individuals involved are free from criminal liability.

4 Exemptions
(1) It is an offence to force any medical or legal representative into taking any part in the euthanasia process against their will.

Part II: Miscellaneous5 Commencement
(1) This Act comes into force on 1st January 2013.

Changes

No longer a need for no further treatment to be working. [Old 1(1)(d) gone]
Diseases that a degenerative, rather than terminal are now eligible. [1(1)(a)]
Set out conditions where patient is no longer able to communicate or make decision on euthanasia, can be done with prior written consent.
Added exemption from being in the process for anyone who does not wish to be.[1(2)]

I think that what has been set out is a very good Bill. My issue is still whether to vote Aye and that is a matter of conscience. I will look at both sides of the argument given and give my opinion as and when I come to one. If not, I shall abstain. Great work though guys!

Regarding the dimension of morality in this Bill, I think it would be prudent for all members, when voting, to recognise that an 'aye' vote is not an endorsement of euthanasia, but rather a declaration of their confidence in the ability of fellow free-thinking individuals to determine the narrative of their own fate.

I personally cannot see myself ever opting for voluntary death, because, unlike many, I don't believe in an afterlife - death is nothingness and I think that I'd always rather choose 'something', even if devastatingly painful, over emptiness. Clinging on until the bitter end, if you will.

I'm not certain about the wording on 1(1)(a), as I don't have a great deal of medical knowledge, but is saying degenerative injury or illness a sufficient definition to cover those who should be given the right to euthanasia, rather than perhaps stating degenerative or terminal, or by giving a better explanation of what can be covered. http://www.kuleuven.be/cbmer/viewpic...BLE=DOCS&ID=23 , which is a translation of the Belgian legislation on euthanasia, states for its requirement...

"- the patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that can not be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident".

It's not a perfect definition, and it might just be me, but I feel it makes more sense to try and describe it in similar terms, to make sure it is available to all those who may need it.

(Original post by barnetlad)
Anyone who has read posts of mine will be aware of my religious beliefs and so as this is a matter of conscience not party allegiance (or sort of allegiance in my case) I would vote no.

I would not call it inflicting at all. I am having regard for the importance and value and dignity of life and wanting us not to entering what I fear would be a slippery slope whereby people would feel under pressure to end their lives early.

(Original post by barnetlad)
I would not call it inflicting at all. I am having regard for the importance and value and dignity of life and wanting us not to entering what I fear would be a slippery slope whereby people would feel under pressure to end their lives early.

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while; so, people who support this Bill do not value life? How'd you figure that offensive little tidbit out Mr Pope?

(Original post by Moleman1996)
What else is he supposed to base his vote on? We are all elected based on our opinions and people wanting them to be represented.

We're supposed to base it on the manifestos we ran under. Had he claimed to be a rabid Catholic bible basher in his Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto then he would likely not been elected. He was sent here for a laugh and should stick to jokes, if he doesn't then he's very poorly reflecting the Party he's supposed to represent.

And people's personal moral values should never be synonymous with their political beliefs, he's saying that his opinion of euthanasia is more valuable than the millions of people who'd like the right to die with dignity.

(Original post by JPKC)
That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while; so, people who support this Bill do not value life? How'd you figure that offensive little tidbit out Mr Pope?

We're supposed to base it on the manifestos we ran under. Had he claimed to be a rabid Catholic bible basher in his Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto then he would likely not been elected. He was sent here for a laugh and should stick to jokes, if he doesn't then he's very poorly reflecting the Party he's supposed to represent.

And people's personal moral values should never be synonymous with their political beliefs, he's saying that his opinion of euthanasia is more valuable than the millions of people who'd like the right to die with dignity.

Whilst I disagree entirely with what he says, I respect his right to say it. He couldn't put everything for every possible outcome into his manifesto, and those who voted for him just have to accept his judgement. It'd be hard to put an MRLP twist on Euthanasia without offending people.

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Whilst I disagree entirely with what he says, I respect his right to say it. He couldn't put everything for every possible outcome into his manifesto, and those who voted for him just have to accept his judgement. It'd be hard to put an MRLP twist on Euthanasia without offending people.

Thank you. There are those issues which are not party but issues of conscience, and that's why I pointed out that anyone who had read my contributions to the forums overall would be aware of my religious views. My contribution outside the MHofC election campaign in posts to the cricket society was noted during the campaign for example.

This is the stupidest thing I've read in a while. If - IF - your view is that no human should have the right to take the life of another, obviously you're going to vote against this. What you're suggesting is akin to not legislating against rape on the grounds that, well, I don't like it but I don't want to force my belief on to others! If you want to rape away, fill your boots, mate!